Trying to Solve Math Problem for Real World Use - Combinatorics











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
2












I'm trying to solve a math problem that hasn't been solved - to anyone's knowledge - in the community it's being used in. I am sure it is not difficult, but I am not smart enough to figure it out.



In England, when on a country shoot (part of Britain's heritage) there are 8 "pegs" (shooting position in a straight line numbered 1-8) and shoot four "drives" (45 minute period of shooting). People draw pegs blind and then there are several ways that people change pegs across the 4 drives. Move two up: 1 goes to 3 goes to 5 goes to 7. Move up three: 1 goes to 4 goes to 7 goes to 2. Odds up 3, evens down 3, etc. 4 and 5 are considered the best "pegs" and 1 and 8 are considered the worst.



The questions is this: How would you solve this problem trying to solve for two different parameters: 1) Everyone get an equal distribution of being at 4/5 and 1/8 or at least close to them such that no one is advantaged over the course of the four "drives" and everyone is equally in the center or on the ends. 2) People get to stand next to different people across the course of the day and not always next to the same people (the reason odds up and evens down was invented).



No one particularly likes the current numbering system and many are looking for an alternative where you draw a number sequence as opposed to a number. (IE, you draw a card that has the "peg" order pre-determined for the 8 people - eg 3,1,5,7)



Thanks for your help! :)



Rand



PS Someone tried to solve this problem previously and could only make it work with 9 "pegs" and not 8. See link - https://www.gunsonpegs.com/articles/shooting-talk/alternatives-to-moving-up-2-the-durnford-wheel










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    8
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    I'm trying to solve a math problem that hasn't been solved - to anyone's knowledge - in the community it's being used in. I am sure it is not difficult, but I am not smart enough to figure it out.



    In England, when on a country shoot (part of Britain's heritage) there are 8 "pegs" (shooting position in a straight line numbered 1-8) and shoot four "drives" (45 minute period of shooting). People draw pegs blind and then there are several ways that people change pegs across the 4 drives. Move two up: 1 goes to 3 goes to 5 goes to 7. Move up three: 1 goes to 4 goes to 7 goes to 2. Odds up 3, evens down 3, etc. 4 and 5 are considered the best "pegs" and 1 and 8 are considered the worst.



    The questions is this: How would you solve this problem trying to solve for two different parameters: 1) Everyone get an equal distribution of being at 4/5 and 1/8 or at least close to them such that no one is advantaged over the course of the four "drives" and everyone is equally in the center or on the ends. 2) People get to stand next to different people across the course of the day and not always next to the same people (the reason odds up and evens down was invented).



    No one particularly likes the current numbering system and many are looking for an alternative where you draw a number sequence as opposed to a number. (IE, you draw a card that has the "peg" order pre-determined for the 8 people - eg 3,1,5,7)



    Thanks for your help! :)



    Rand



    PS Someone tried to solve this problem previously and could only make it work with 9 "pegs" and not 8. See link - https://www.gunsonpegs.com/articles/shooting-talk/alternatives-to-moving-up-2-the-durnford-wheel










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      I'm trying to solve a math problem that hasn't been solved - to anyone's knowledge - in the community it's being used in. I am sure it is not difficult, but I am not smart enough to figure it out.



      In England, when on a country shoot (part of Britain's heritage) there are 8 "pegs" (shooting position in a straight line numbered 1-8) and shoot four "drives" (45 minute period of shooting). People draw pegs blind and then there are several ways that people change pegs across the 4 drives. Move two up: 1 goes to 3 goes to 5 goes to 7. Move up three: 1 goes to 4 goes to 7 goes to 2. Odds up 3, evens down 3, etc. 4 and 5 are considered the best "pegs" and 1 and 8 are considered the worst.



      The questions is this: How would you solve this problem trying to solve for two different parameters: 1) Everyone get an equal distribution of being at 4/5 and 1/8 or at least close to them such that no one is advantaged over the course of the four "drives" and everyone is equally in the center or on the ends. 2) People get to stand next to different people across the course of the day and not always next to the same people (the reason odds up and evens down was invented).



      No one particularly likes the current numbering system and many are looking for an alternative where you draw a number sequence as opposed to a number. (IE, you draw a card that has the "peg" order pre-determined for the 8 people - eg 3,1,5,7)



      Thanks for your help! :)



      Rand



      PS Someone tried to solve this problem previously and could only make it work with 9 "pegs" and not 8. See link - https://www.gunsonpegs.com/articles/shooting-talk/alternatives-to-moving-up-2-the-durnford-wheel










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I'm trying to solve a math problem that hasn't been solved - to anyone's knowledge - in the community it's being used in. I am sure it is not difficult, but I am not smart enough to figure it out.



      In England, when on a country shoot (part of Britain's heritage) there are 8 "pegs" (shooting position in a straight line numbered 1-8) and shoot four "drives" (45 minute period of shooting). People draw pegs blind and then there are several ways that people change pegs across the 4 drives. Move two up: 1 goes to 3 goes to 5 goes to 7. Move up three: 1 goes to 4 goes to 7 goes to 2. Odds up 3, evens down 3, etc. 4 and 5 are considered the best "pegs" and 1 and 8 are considered the worst.



      The questions is this: How would you solve this problem trying to solve for two different parameters: 1) Everyone get an equal distribution of being at 4/5 and 1/8 or at least close to them such that no one is advantaged over the course of the four "drives" and everyone is equally in the center or on the ends. 2) People get to stand next to different people across the course of the day and not always next to the same people (the reason odds up and evens down was invented).



      No one particularly likes the current numbering system and many are looking for an alternative where you draw a number sequence as opposed to a number. (IE, you draw a card that has the "peg" order pre-determined for the 8 people - eg 3,1,5,7)



      Thanks for your help! :)



      Rand



      PS Someone tried to solve this problem previously and could only make it work with 9 "pegs" and not 8. See link - https://www.gunsonpegs.com/articles/shooting-talk/alternatives-to-moving-up-2-the-durnford-wheel







      combinatorics combinatorial-designs






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 14 at 20:57









      Acccumulation

      6,6512616




      6,6512616






      New contributor




      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Dec 14 at 14:57









      Rand

      411




      411




      New contributor




      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Rand is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          9
          down vote













          If you want a wheel-like system, by my (corrected) calculation there are 4 possibilities (8 with reversals).





          • $1 to 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1$ (almost evens-up odds-down)

          • $1 to 2 to 5 to 3 to 8 to 7 to 4 to 6 to 1$


          • $1 to 3 to 5 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1$ (almost odds-up evens-down)

          • $1 to 3 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 6 to 5 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 4 to 3 to 8 to 2 to 5 to 6 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 5 to 6 to 8 to 2 to 4 to 3 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 5 to 2 to 8 to 3 to 4 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 4 to 7 to 8 to 3 to 5 to 2 to 1$


          The first or third seem like they might be easiest to sell from a cultural standpoint.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 3




            This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
            – saulspatz
            Dec 14 at 16:58






          • 1




            @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
            – Peter Taylor
            Dec 14 at 17:01






          • 1




            You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
            – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
            Dec 14 at 17:20












          • Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
            – Rand
            yesterday










          • To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
            – Rand
            yesterday


















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          How about this schedule? Everyone gets one drive on the end and one in the middle, and also one drive which is one from the middle and one which is one from the end. No two people stand together twice.



          Letters are people, rows are drives, columns are pegs.



          A B H C G D F E
          B C A D H E G F
          C D B E A F H G
          D E C F B G A H





          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
            – r.e.s.
            Dec 14 at 18:20












          • It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
            – Henry
            Dec 14 at 23:12










          • @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
            – r.e.s.
            2 days ago








          • 1




            @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
            – Peter Taylor
            2 days ago










          • Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
            – Rand
            yesterday











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Rand is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3039460%2ftrying-to-solve-math-problem-for-real-world-use-combinatorics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          9
          down vote













          If you want a wheel-like system, by my (corrected) calculation there are 4 possibilities (8 with reversals).





          • $1 to 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1$ (almost evens-up odds-down)

          • $1 to 2 to 5 to 3 to 8 to 7 to 4 to 6 to 1$


          • $1 to 3 to 5 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1$ (almost odds-up evens-down)

          • $1 to 3 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 6 to 5 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 4 to 3 to 8 to 2 to 5 to 6 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 5 to 6 to 8 to 2 to 4 to 3 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 5 to 2 to 8 to 3 to 4 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 4 to 7 to 8 to 3 to 5 to 2 to 1$


          The first or third seem like they might be easiest to sell from a cultural standpoint.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 3




            This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
            – saulspatz
            Dec 14 at 16:58






          • 1




            @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
            – Peter Taylor
            Dec 14 at 17:01






          • 1




            You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
            – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
            Dec 14 at 17:20












          • Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
            – Rand
            yesterday










          • To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
            – Rand
            yesterday















          up vote
          9
          down vote













          If you want a wheel-like system, by my (corrected) calculation there are 4 possibilities (8 with reversals).





          • $1 to 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1$ (almost evens-up odds-down)

          • $1 to 2 to 5 to 3 to 8 to 7 to 4 to 6 to 1$


          • $1 to 3 to 5 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1$ (almost odds-up evens-down)

          • $1 to 3 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 6 to 5 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 4 to 3 to 8 to 2 to 5 to 6 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 5 to 6 to 8 to 2 to 4 to 3 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 5 to 2 to 8 to 3 to 4 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 4 to 7 to 8 to 3 to 5 to 2 to 1$


          The first or third seem like they might be easiest to sell from a cultural standpoint.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 3




            This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
            – saulspatz
            Dec 14 at 16:58






          • 1




            @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
            – Peter Taylor
            Dec 14 at 17:01






          • 1




            You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
            – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
            Dec 14 at 17:20












          • Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
            – Rand
            yesterday










          • To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
            – Rand
            yesterday













          up vote
          9
          down vote










          up vote
          9
          down vote









          If you want a wheel-like system, by my (corrected) calculation there are 4 possibilities (8 with reversals).





          • $1 to 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1$ (almost evens-up odds-down)

          • $1 to 2 to 5 to 3 to 8 to 7 to 4 to 6 to 1$


          • $1 to 3 to 5 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1$ (almost odds-up evens-down)

          • $1 to 3 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 6 to 5 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 4 to 3 to 8 to 2 to 5 to 6 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 5 to 6 to 8 to 2 to 4 to 3 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 5 to 2 to 8 to 3 to 4 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 4 to 7 to 8 to 3 to 5 to 2 to 1$


          The first or third seem like they might be easiest to sell from a cultural standpoint.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          If you want a wheel-like system, by my (corrected) calculation there are 4 possibilities (8 with reversals).





          • $1 to 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1$ (almost evens-up odds-down)

          • $1 to 2 to 5 to 3 to 8 to 7 to 4 to 6 to 1$


          • $1 to 3 to 5 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1$ (almost odds-up evens-down)

          • $1 to 3 to 4 to 2 to 8 to 6 to 5 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 4 to 3 to 8 to 2 to 5 to 6 to 1$

          • $1 to 7 to 5 to 6 to 8 to 2 to 4 to 3 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 5 to 2 to 8 to 3 to 4 to 7 to 1$

          • $1 to 6 to 4 to 7 to 8 to 3 to 5 to 2 to 1$


          The first or third seem like they might be easiest to sell from a cultural standpoint.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 14 at 16:59

























          answered Dec 14 at 16:33









          Peter Taylor

          8,61712240




          8,61712240








          • 3




            This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
            – saulspatz
            Dec 14 at 16:58






          • 1




            @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
            – Peter Taylor
            Dec 14 at 17:01






          • 1




            You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
            – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
            Dec 14 at 17:20












          • Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
            – Rand
            yesterday










          • To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
            – Rand
            yesterday














          • 3




            This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
            – saulspatz
            Dec 14 at 16:58






          • 1




            @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
            – Peter Taylor
            Dec 14 at 17:01






          • 1




            You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
            – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
            Dec 14 at 17:20












          • Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
            – Rand
            yesterday










          • To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
            – Rand
            yesterday








          3




          3




          This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
          – saulspatz
          Dec 14 at 16:58




          This is really elegant, and easy to remember. Evens move two up and odds two down, except that those on the ends move one place toward the middle. I wish I could understand CJam.
          – saulspatz
          Dec 14 at 16:58




          1




          1




          @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
          – Peter Taylor
          Dec 14 at 17:01




          @saulspatz, thanks for the observation, which I have included in an edit I was working on.
          – Peter Taylor
          Dec 14 at 17:01




          1




          1




          You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
          – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
          Dec 14 at 17:20






          You can imagine numbers 1 and 3 as having people going round a conveyor belt, with the evens on the “upper” side and the odds on the “lower” side. E.g. for number 3, this is a conveyor belt like /_⁻⁻_⁻⁻_⁻⁻/, going clockwise.
          – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
          Dec 14 at 17:20














          Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
          – Rand
          yesterday




          Thank you for your effort on this! I like these. What is the different between the first half of the sequences and the second half? When I look at something like number 5 on the list, what I like about it is that you get to move from middle to end to middle to end and it would appear get to stand next to the largest number of different people.
          – Rand
          yesterday












          To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
          – Rand
          yesterday




          To be more clear, I was asking how you approached the second set of series from a calculation perspective when I said "What's the difference".
          – Rand
          yesterday










          up vote
          6
          down vote













          How about this schedule? Everyone gets one drive on the end and one in the middle, and also one drive which is one from the middle and one which is one from the end. No two people stand together twice.



          Letters are people, rows are drives, columns are pegs.



          A B H C G D F E
          B C A D H E G F
          C D B E A F H G
          D E C F B G A H





          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
            – r.e.s.
            Dec 14 at 18:20












          • It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
            – Henry
            Dec 14 at 23:12










          • @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
            – r.e.s.
            2 days ago








          • 1




            @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
            – Peter Taylor
            2 days ago










          • Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
            – Rand
            yesterday















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          How about this schedule? Everyone gets one drive on the end and one in the middle, and also one drive which is one from the middle and one which is one from the end. No two people stand together twice.



          Letters are people, rows are drives, columns are pegs.



          A B H C G D F E
          B C A D H E G F
          C D B E A F H G
          D E C F B G A H





          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
            – r.e.s.
            Dec 14 at 18:20












          • It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
            – Henry
            Dec 14 at 23:12










          • @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
            – r.e.s.
            2 days ago








          • 1




            @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
            – Peter Taylor
            2 days ago










          • Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
            – Rand
            yesterday













          up vote
          6
          down vote










          up vote
          6
          down vote









          How about this schedule? Everyone gets one drive on the end and one in the middle, and also one drive which is one from the middle and one which is one from the end. No two people stand together twice.



          Letters are people, rows are drives, columns are pegs.



          A B H C G D F E
          B C A D H E G F
          C D B E A F H G
          D E C F B G A H





          share|cite|improve this answer












          How about this schedule? Everyone gets one drive on the end and one in the middle, and also one drive which is one from the middle and one which is one from the end. No two people stand together twice.



          Letters are people, rows are drives, columns are pegs.



          A B H C G D F E
          B C A D H E G F
          C D B E A F H G
          D E C F B G A H






          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 14 at 16:06









          Mike Earnest

          20k11950




          20k11950








          • 1




            This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
            – r.e.s.
            Dec 14 at 18:20












          • It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
            – Henry
            Dec 14 at 23:12










          • @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
            – r.e.s.
            2 days ago








          • 1




            @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
            – Peter Taylor
            2 days ago










          • Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
            – Rand
            yesterday














          • 1




            This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
            – r.e.s.
            Dec 14 at 18:20












          • It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
            – Henry
            Dec 14 at 23:12










          • @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
            – r.e.s.
            2 days ago








          • 1




            @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
            – Peter Taylor
            2 days ago










          • Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
            – Rand
            yesterday








          1




          1




          This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
          – r.e.s.
          Dec 14 at 18:20






          This happens to be the third of Peter Taylor's eight possibilities (i.e. his "almost odds-up evens-down").
          – r.e.s.
          Dec 14 at 18:20














          It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
          – Henry
          Dec 14 at 23:12




          It is implicit, but not only do no two people stand together twice, but also each pair of people are next to each other once
          – Henry
          Dec 14 at 23:12












          @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
          – r.e.s.
          2 days ago






          @Henry - If I'm not mistaken, those properties are also implicit in all eight of Peter Taylor's solutions.
          – r.e.s.
          2 days ago






          1




          1




          @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
          – Peter Taylor
          2 days ago




          @r.e.s., that each pair stand together once is implicit in the requirement that no pair stand together twice.
          – Peter Taylor
          2 days ago












          Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
          – Rand
          yesterday




          Thanks Mike. Appreciate your time on this. Looks like you and Peter came up with a similar approach (Peter's number 3) on this particular one.
          – Rand
          yesterday










          Rand is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Rand is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          Rand is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Rand is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3039460%2ftrying-to-solve-math-problem-for-real-world-use-combinatorics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

          Alcedinidae

          Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]